Martin, clearly religion can benefit society, but that's NOT why individual people obey the religion. I've spent my entire adult life amongst other frequent church-goers, including much discussion of religion, and have spent years teaching others about religion (particularly my own). I think I have a pretty good idea about why people actually believe in their faiths -- perhaps a better idea than Marx, who, though far more intelligent than I, interviewed no one about the nature of their belief, but simply (and naturally) assumed that his _own_ belief was correct, and then reasoned from afar about why religion existed (and I don't condemn dis Marx here -- I respect the man a lot).
Tithing is followed by tithe-payers not for of the good it does society, but for the good it does_them_ . People obey rules which benefit society not primarily for _society's_ benefit, but for their own. Of course religion's function from "society's" viewpoint is to reinforce societal norms. But, since society, as a collection of individuals, has no viewpoint of its own, let's move on. My contention, which I maintain, is that Gloranthans, as well as terrans, obey religion for the value it provides _them_ and their lives.
That's all.
>Moreover, most all religions teach how to get along in society,
whether as >mainstreamers or a side branch. The Thugees are the
only counterexample I can >think of
Here are some more counterexamples. (Anyone wishing to try to refute my counterexamples point by point is invited to do so offline -- originally I had about eight pages of text here bolstering what I said below, but then realized that only about two people would want to read it.)
The Assassins -- originally a Shi'ite terrorist sect The Shakers, who withdrew from society rather than face itOther examples of this type of withdrawal are not uncommon -- the Amish, for instance.
The Mormons were massacred by hundreds in Missouri. This seems to have been primarily motivated by financial and political motivations. Later, in Utah, they were oppressed by the government because of their marital practices.
The Huguenots were viewed as a threat to the state of France. The Cainites (ancient Christian heresy). Certain groups of medieval witch-cults. Witchcraft was anoutgrowth of heresy and witches were most prevalent in areas which also had a high incidence of heretics. It was the "ultimate" heresy, so to speak. (Of course, areas with strong central church authorities had little heresy, and so, no witches -- i.e., the Inquisitions and witch hunts mostly killed only non-witches.) Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that most medieval witch-cults were anti-society, defining themselves largely by opposition to the existing norms.
Russian apocalyptic sects, especially (but not solely) near the year 1000, when a couple of these groups managed to pull off some mass suicides and worse things.
A late 19th century religious sect in sub-Saharan Africa (dang, don't have my notes here). Expecting Jesus to come and drive out the evil white men (and they _were_ evil, certainly), a young girl convinced around 40,000 other black Africans to sell or kill all their cows, burn their huts, put on white robes, and gather together on hilltops to receive Jesus. Jim Jones is a modern example.
Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not believe in providing certain services that most governments take for granted (which is why JW's were put in Nazi concentration camps along with Jews).
I could probably come up with another twenty or so, put to the test. But I won't. Note that many of these groups _weren't_ and "_aren't_ any threat to central authority or society, but their perception as such sometimes turned them into this -- as with the Huguenots.
Sandy
End of Glorantha Digest V2 #335
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail